Republican Jewish Coalition Bars Ron Paul From Presidential Debate

To be honest, they are correct here. Paul is way outside of the Republican box. He belongs to the Party because as a third party person or a
Libertarian it would be harder for him to get elected. He is most certainly a Republican in name only, he is nowhere near the Party Platform in his
beliefs.

I'm sorry, but I just have to ask: why do you think Paul is "just a Republican in name only?" I always envisioned him as a "true" conservative
Republican. I think you're confusing "conservativitism" with "neoconservatism," a notion that a majority--if not all--GOP candidates subscribe to. He
was a Republican before switching over to the Libertarian party and eventually switched back. I don't see how he's a "Republican" in name only.

As for the platform of the party--are you talking about the "conservativitism" or "neoconservatism" platform--there is a significant difference
between the two.

As for the whole Israel issue, history and facts will show that they are highly influential within the American political sphere. I view Paul's
exclusion from this particular forum as a positive step--it showcases that he's on to something.

No, not at all. Seems a calm discussion. People don't have to be on the same page to have a debate or discussion.

Just Google Ron Paul and racist letters. You will find scans of some that were found in libraries. It's a well known part of Ron Paul's career. He
simply claims that he never read them and that others wrote them. Could be true, but even so would a competent leader sign things he did not read?

I only decided against Paul myself yesterday for the reason I mentioned. I give him the benefit of the doubt on his earlier career and I'm also open
to the idea that people do change over a lifetime. Where others tend to see flip flops, I see people maturing and changing while being honest about
it. I'd hope all leaders evolve over time.

I see him as more of a Libertarian. Nothing wrong in that and I think Libertarians often run as Republicans.

As to the Jewish people wanting to influence the politics of the this country just like everyone else does? Has no meaning at all. Simply means they
enjoy the same Rights as anyone else.

I'm an Independent that leans to the Right on size of government and fiscal issues, while leaning to the Left on many social issues. I think I'm
fairly average. I vote based on the Candidate and not the Party. I don't approve of the destructive, divisive Party System.

I don't think you can define Paul by pigeonholing him to one position, anymore than you can honestly do that with most people.

I tend to watch a candidates supporters to see what they are like; Who are the candidates reaching out to and who makes up their base.

Republicans and Libertarians do share some core beliefs and I think that is obvious. With Paul his own remarks tend to make me think he leans the
Libertarian way. Neither bad nor good, just an observation.

Is he just another Obama for the "alternative" crowd? Saying all the right things, winning over the level headed people and intellectuals but
ultimately serving the one and the same master.

And won't Ron Paul be an OAP by the time he gets into office? You have to give it to Ron Paul though, he has said what most people were too scared
to say and stood up to one or two political pit bulls.

Just sent my email to those pigs. Everyone should email them. Lets crash their server or something. How bout a Ron Paul email bomb? This is complete
b*** s***. I guess they really do control the media.

Wonderful example of the kind of thing driving people away from Paul. I'm sure he appreciates having your support

Crashing a Server is what an
irrational child would do, not an adult. Of course their also exists many children in adult age bodies, sadly.

Odd since Paul is getting lots of airtime and is in the news almost daily. I watched him interviewed a few hours ago. He's getting plenty of
attention. He must be on an MSN program multiple times a week.

Is it that Paul supporters don't watch the news and therefore think he is not being covered?

I am Jewish born and raised, I consider myself conservative and am a registered republican, as are my father and grandfather. I am one of the few
Jewish conservatives in this country that believe Israel should be a sovereign nation. There is no reason to be giving aid to a rich country that has
a very strong military and over 300 nuclear weapons. It is in Jewish culture to be very community oriented and take great pride in caring for one
another, i believe it is the wish of most citizens of Israel that they take care of themselves. America should at least cut the aid, I will say that i
don't believe America should leave Israel completely on their own but i think the role of a regular ally.. to defend Israel if they can't handle
it, should be assumed. However, i think we all know Israel is very capable of handling its own affairs.
I believe the only reason America is so up with Israel is because Israel has the right to do thins in the Middle East that world opinion would not
allow America to do.

The same thing that motivates CNN to ignore Ron Paul. He isn't mainstream. He doesn't "serve" the establishment (ostensibly) in any meaningful way.
And so they blacklist him.

As for this being a Jewish group. So typical. The idiotic, moronic Jewish establishment loves to incite the ire of the antisemites. They do
something like this, and anti-zionist rhetoric flows through. And they know it. They knows its the 'fringe' counter culture individual - who
subscribes to "conspiracy" theories, i.e. that the federal reserve is corrupt (which it is), who is most susceptible to feelings of anti-zionism
(amongst conservatives). Blacklist Paul? Congrats. You attract increased ire from the growing anti-government far right

See how clever the social architects are? Let him speak. What's the very worse that can happen? He already has TV appearances. That's manifold times
more publicity then he would get from this Jewish sponsored gathering. So what sense is there, given the political/sociological affect this would
have, in denying Ron Paul the right to speak? This just shows you how thoroughly corrupt both sides (right and left) of the Jewish establishment are.
All they care about by denying Paul the right to speak is not 'discrediting his views', or ignoring his popularity - since any contribution they would
make to that is nil. All they know is by denying Paul a right to speak will have a definite sociological affect on the anti-government movement Paul
serves as the symbolic head of. It pushes those on the right - further towards feelings of anti-Zionism.

Abe Lincoln once said "It Will All Become one Thing"
Indeed there is little difference between the elephants and the donkeys.
There are those who follow a lie because they don't know any better, and there are those who lie because those who don't know any better are most
likely to believe them.

Those not in the mainstream are most likely those who are telling and believing the truth. that would be many of us along with the likes of Ron
Paul who already know what is true....

TPTB fear RP because he stands for the truth. I may not agree with everything he says, but he is a truthful person to be believed.
Point being that this isn't just a Jewish thing. They were blatant and just banned Paul..But not the MSM
they deliberately let him in and then tried to humiliate him and degrade him. I am not sure which is worse..at least the Jewish Coalition was
truthful. The MSM deliberately tried to sabotage Paul. In my estimation ...even worse.
So this situation isn't resident only to the Jewish coalition.
when RP was invited to any and all of the debates recent, he was given little chance to even speak. the attempt was to make him look like an idiot by
not allowing him any credibility. and no chance to defend. They intended to smear. The Jewish Coalition just bluntly said..NO. hmmm....
so I wonder why single out this Coalition for telling the truth of what they believe when the MSM deliberately tried to promulgate a lie? they are
both wrong of course, but one was also deceptive that being the MSM.
Which is worse. Not to invite and respond with what they believed, or to invite him and give him no time to speak with credibility?
It is all wrong. One appears a little worse to me than the other because it actually involves deceit.
the JC didn't deceive. the simply said no. And insulted him. The MSM insulted by proxy. And great was that insult..
As long as this type of thing continues and we are lied to by everyone involved there can be no harmony in America. I hope I am wrong...I fear I
am not. What a mess
DH

While I partially agree with you, the MSM's attempts to humiliate Ron Paul is covered here on ATS almost weekly. I think we pay attention to the
MSM's attempts at character assassination as well as groups (such as this one) who would like to exclude Ron Paul from the debates when he is clearly
in the top two. There's nothing wrong with giving either of these things some attention. Why would anyone want to exclude this subject?

Just sent my email to those pigs. Everyone should email them. Lets crash their server or something. How bout a Ron Paul email bomb? This is complete
b*** s***. I guess they really do control the media.

Wonderful example of the kind of thing driving people away from Paul. I'm sure he appreciates having your support

Crashing a Server is what an
irrational child would do, not an adult. Of course their also exists many children in adult age bodies, sadly.

Odd since Paul is getting lots of airtime and is in the news almost daily. I watched him interviewed a few hours ago. He's getting plenty of
attention. He must be on an MSN program multiple times a week.

Is it that Paul supporters don't watch the news and therefore think he is not being covered?

Trolling is childish as well and although you are very subtle about it you are indeed a troll. Yes you show up in every RP thread and make underhanded
comments about RP and his supporters.

I could care less about a man , I care about his ideas. And the simple fact is right now I could care less about whose pro choice or pro life, who
backs gay marriages or who doesn't, who makes attack ads or who doesnt.
I care about the things that are really destroying the country, which would be corrupt politicians, endless wars and the Federal Reserve, all other
things are meaningless in comparison at this point in time.

RP is a strict constitutionalist, anti fed and anti war mongering. Now if you dont believe in these things I suggest you take that bald eagle out of
your avatar and replace it with this one :

Because if you do not like his ideas of supporting the constitution, ending the fed, and not catering to the military industrial complex then you are
pretty much anti American in my books and shouldn't be sporting a bald Eagle that shrieks for freedom the same as RP does.

He has said, "they can't even make enough gasoline for themselves and we are worried about them getting nukes?"

He has said, "why would we ever take negotiation and diplomacy off the table? I disagree with the sanctions, we are driving them into the arms of
our enemies."

He has also said we should stop dictating what Israel does, and if Israel were attacked, we would defend her.

So, his "extreme" stance is, lets negotiate and use diplomacy with Iran and take away the leverage from Russia and China. Lets open up trade with
them and ease restrictions so they won't need nuke power. Let's let Israel take whatever action it sees necessary and stop dictating their
policy for them. And, as their ally, we will defend them if it comes to that.

WOW! Where does the common sense end and the extreme begin, because I'm not seeing it?

This looks like a win-win-win foreign policy if you
ask me.

Great post.

I also struggle to see what people are thinking when they say Ron is too extreme?

How is using diplomacy more extreme then militarily engaging yet another country?

How is bringing our troops home, and securing OUR borders, more extreme then fighting multiple wars overseas, wasting trillions, and attempting to
secure borders halfway around the world?

Isn't locking up someone with a drug problem for 10+ years more extreme then helping them find treatment for their addiction?

If you ask me, everything this country does right now is FAR TOO EXTREME, and Ron wants to reign it in. People seem to think extreme is just a
different way of doing things. New ideas are apparently too extreme, eventhough the old ones have gotten us nowhere.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.